Talk:Urolithin A

Research section

Addition of research on rats is not encyclopedic to implicate anti-disease properties per WP:PRIMARY. Early-stage human rsearch is ok, but all the animal studies and different disease models can be condensed to a single sentence, e.g., "Laboratory research on the potential roles of urolithin A includes models of lifespan, inflammation, muscle function, and cancer."<refs> The content on antimicrobial effects is easier to define in vitro and may have direct basis for drug development. Having subheads for each of the areas where rat studies exist may lead the non-science WP user to believe these are actually established and may apply to humans. Not the case of course, so we should de-emphasize them. --Zefr (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand. But the paper I am referring to is much more than a simple observation, as it validates an unknown mechanism of action of urolithin A at a cellular level and correlates it to the observed enhanced endurance in rats. In this sense, this is a real scientific milestone, and probably the reason why it was published in Nature Medicine. There is a very strong evidence brought by the authors (restoring mitophagy -> higher mitochondrial activity in muscle cells -> more endurance observed in elderly rats). I feel this deserves more than just a little quote (it is by far the most solid paper that this article refers to). What are your thoughts? LioArthur (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the Nature Medicine article is too preliminary to discuss as fact, but rather is evidence that research is underway, albeit very early-stage and far from high-quality human studies, such randomized controlled trials. If used at all, it should represent only a general statement about ongoing research. --Zefr (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You wrote: You can respond here on your Talk page (I'm following) or at Talk:Urolithin A where I moved the discussion to involve others. I think the Nature Medicine article is too preliminary to discuss as fact, but rather is evidence that research is underway, albeit very early-stage and far from human studies.--Zefr (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That was my point of disagreement, I do not think that in the case of this research we are very early-stage. Not only do we have an observation but also an entire demonstration of the underlying cellular mechanism (induction of mitophagy and enhancement of mitochondrial functions within muscle cells). Comes also the fact that the study was published in Nature Medicine which, besides not being a minor journal, has as an editorial policy to publish only findings that are directly relevant to pathogenesis and therapies. This does not sound like early stage. Even more importantly, we are not far from human studies as you said, since human studies are underway - the paragraph ends quoting a peer-reviewed successful phase I double blind with 60 patient which is precisely exploring the aspect of muscle function enhancement in elderly humans. — LioArthur (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

LioArthur: monitor medical editor feedback here. --Zefr (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Preliminary clinical research and commercial promotion

This edit by Jules8th was reverted because it presents content and sources from primary research, not from WP:MEDRS reviews. It attempted to extrapolate lab research and overinterpret human studies to suggest that urolithin A could affect mitochondria and improve muscle function. It presented a commercial promotion by a Swiss dietary supplement company, suggesting that its urolithin product provided "medical nutrition". This is commercial promotion, WP:PROMO, and original research, WP:OR, as well as unscientific, unproven nonsense. Zefr (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The first human clinical trial mentioned in the edit was published in Nature Metabolism and would represent an additional argument for the safety of urolithin A in humans. The edit contains none of the health claims made by the study, it only mentions safety. Reference: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-019-0073-4 Jules8th (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It's primary research that might be suitable for a journal or thesis, but not for an encyclopedia. Please read WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8, WP:MEDASSESS, and WP:WHYMEDRS. Zefr (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Commercialization

This section is similar to those found in other Wikipedia articles (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinamide_riboside#Commercialization). No health claims were made in this section, it is factual data about the state of consumer products based on urolithin A. Jules8th (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The commercialization section in the reverted edit was clearly promotional and with WP:UNDUE weight. When there is a WP:MEDRS review indicating any biological significance of this compound as a dietary supplement, then it can be reconsidered. Meanwhile, it's just exaggerated marketing that will mislead consumers to waste their money. Zefr (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to rephrase this section to make it clear that urolithin A is finding its way into commercial/consumer products(see below)? It is of public importance that consumer-grade urolithin A exists, not just research-grade for trials and studies. "mislead consumers to waste their money" is a subjective and harsh assessment for a paragraph without any health claims. How/why would Wikipedia be responsible for consumer/financial decisions made by its readers ? Finally, I have not seen similar objections for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol#Dietary_supplements, which includes a significant section about David Sinclair and Sirtris Pharmaceuticals.Jules8th (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion would be: "Research-grade urolithin A is available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma-Aldrich. Dietary supplements and food products based on urolithin A have been announced by Amazentis, a Swiss life sciences company, and Nestlé Health Science. Amazentis started sales of its urolithin A products in 2020, under the Timeline Nutrition brand." Reference: https://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Article/2020/07/28/Amazentis-launches-Timeline-Cellular-Nutrition-to-help-counter-age-associated-cellular-decline Jules8th (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That's pure promotion, WP:PLUG and WP:NOTADVICE. My position is that you should focus on stating facts about urolithin A properties, once proven in a future WP:MEDRS review on human studies. Until then, nothing can be reliably stated about its value to consumers, and so remains a marketing scam. If you'd like wider review on this topic among medical editors, post a question and ask for feedback at WT:MED. Zefr (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Your position is clear. What's not clear is why your position was different for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol#Dietary_supplements, which you are also editing. Also, "nothing can be reliably stated about its value to consumers, and so remains a marketing scam" is a comment about imaginary content, the paragraph above says nothing about its value to consumers. It is strictly mentioning the availability of consumer-grade urolithin A supplements and food products, implying that commercialization efforts are under way. This can be reliably stated, but can be reformulated further: "Dietary supplements and food products based on urolithin A have been announced by Amazentis and Nestlé Health Science in 2019. Amazentis started sales of its urolithin A products in 2020." Jules8th (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's unencyclopedic as promotional news, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTNEWS. When urolithin products are assessed for their uses or efficacy in a scientific review per WP:MEDREV, then they could be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Safety

The favorable GRAS notice obtained by Amazentis is of interest as it establishes the safety of urolithin A for food products (non-medical). Also, a GRAS notice from the FDA seems to fit the definition of a secondary source. Jules8th (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Added to the Safety section with the appropriate FDA source. Zefr (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

General observations

Research and development around urolithin A has been advancing fast in recent years as seen by the number of studies and trials, whereas the article has failed to include any of the results since 2017, going against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_guide_for_medical_editors (Use up-to-date evidence, Summarize scientific consensus, etc). No effort has been done to keep parts of the previous edit, which is not in line with Wikipedia code-of-conduct guidelines (i.e. Revert only when necessary). "Since the 2000s, urolithin A has been subject of preliminary studies regarding its possible biological effects." paints a picture of almost complete ignorance regarding the medical and health effects of urolithin A, which is divorced from the facts as of 2020. Jules8th (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There are no proven "medical and health benefits of urolithin A"; that statement would require a WP:MEDRS review of completed randomized controlled trials, seen at the top of the WP:MEDASSESS left pyramid. This is a PubMed search today of reviews on urolithin A, showing that physiological understanding of urolithin A is years/decades from being clear and well-studied in humans, with no review satisfying WP:MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Doesn’t it have to be mentioned what it is used for, controversy and that it is preliminy ? Eg as per

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37764668/

Thy SvenAERTS (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: information about this compound's possible role in the alleviation of aging-related symptoms. Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/researchers-draw-new-connections-between-aging-and-mitochondrial-health/ 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

To add to this article: information about this compound's possible role in the alleviation of aging-related symptoms. Source: https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/supplement-appears-boost-muscle-mitochondria-health?utm_source=UW_News_Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=UW_Today_row&mkt_tok=NTI3LUFIUi0yNjUAAAGCOppiSznQ0Wg8NaM7onJ1CyQAJNweuF91xLM9JlvDfF5Ev8AiwoHIkJBl_xanIUf3U8ksiCQ_PqZRTOTOk7MBEvExNNH5Dk2t2cQPR6BjWA Liebertk (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)